Scientists drilling deep into the edge of modern Antarctica have pulled up proof that palm trees once grew there.Analyses of pollen and spores and the remains of tiny creatures have given a climatic picture of the early Eocene period, about 53 million years ago....
"There are two ways of looking at where we're going in the future," said a co-author of the study, James Bendle of the University of Glasgow
"One is using physics-based climate models; but increasingly we're using this 'back to the future' approach where we look through periods in the geological past that are similar to where we may be going in 10 years, or 20, or several hundred," he told BBC News
The early Eocene was a period of atmospheric CO2 concentrations higher than the current 390 parts per million (ppm )- reaching at least 600ppm and possibly far higher.Global temperatures were on the order of 5C higher, and there was no sharp divide in temperature between the poles and the equator...
"The more we get that information, the more it seems that the models we're using now are not overestimating the [climatic] change over the next few centuries, and they may be underestimating it. That's the essential message."Read it at BBC News Science & Environment
Palm trees 'grew on Antarctica'
Jason Palmer | Science and technology reporter
(h/t Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism)
5 comments:
This may look promising:
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/SPICE/SPICE.htm
Using aerosols to cool earth...
Resp,
Another death blow to MMT. This proves Robinson Crusoe saved coconuts on Antarctica. Face it MMT'ers, we Austrians have been schooling you since the Eocene.
Yours,
Robert Murphy
One thing that puzzles me about 'global warming' is how it is used as the basis of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Particularly the purported environmental devastation that will come from exhausting fossil fuels. But how did the fossil fuels get there in the first place? Where did the carbon necessary for producing fossil fuels come from? The carbon must have existed as CO2 in prehistoric times.
The earth came first, then the high concentrations of CO2, then fossil-fuels from decaying plant life. Obviously the earth and life on it has experienced higher concentrations of CO2 then what we are currently experiencing.... and perhaps thrived....
Assuming that global warming is happening the only immediate issue appears to be taking care of smaller communities that are affected. i.e rising ocean levels, changes in agricultural output, etc. But I think nature in general is not facing any threat from the exhaustion of fossil fuels.
Wek,
On the off chance that you're not a troll, and a genuinely concerned citizen, I'm going to respond to some of your points.
>>The earth came first, then the high concentrations of CO2, then fossil-fuels from decaying plant life. Obviously the earth and life on it has experienced higher concentrations of CO2 then what we are currently experiencing.... and perhaps thrived....<<
CO2 is a combination of C (which is carbon) and O2 (which is Oxygen). O2 exists as a gas in the atmosphere which does not increase global warming. In fact, if I remember correctly, it has a cooling effect. The Carbon can exist in many forms, including plants, people, oil, coal, diamonds, or all by itself as C4 which is a solid. That is where the carbon exists before it is burned.
When carbon based fuel is burned it combines with O2 in the atmosphere and creates CO2, known as carbon dioxide which is a green house gas. Climate Change scientists are not suggesting, as you make it sound, that the CO2 is appearing out of no where. It is coming from solid forms of carbon combining with oxygen molecules.
>>But I think nature in general is not facing any threat from the exhaustion of fossil fuels.<<
Some animals, like Polar Bears and Humans are facing a threat as the earth changes and no longer is hospitable to the environments we need. You are right in that nature itself will go on. High CO2 is good for many plants, for instance.
However, since my family and I are humans and not plants, I need to worry about Climate Change.
@DustinM
Hopefully I don't come across as too troll-like! :P
Climate Change scientists are not suggesting, as you make it sound, that the CO2 is appearing out of no where. It is coming from solid forms of carbon combining with oxygen molecules.
I wasn't really suggesting anything about where current forms of CO2 are coming from. I was trying too say that (nearly) all fossil fuel forms are a result of the 'digestion' of CO2 by phototrophs over the millennia. This means that historically CO2 concentrations must have been higher than what they are now. Otherwise where did the CO2 necessary to create fossil fuels come from?
The consumption of CO2 by phototrophs for the creation of fossil fuels places a demand upon total global CO2 levels. What was meeting this demand? I'm not sure of any other form of Carbon apart from CO2 that is naturally abundant. Most other forms of carbon are functionally rare. Therefore, most carbon that exists as fossil fuels must have existed as CO2 either in the air or dissolved in water. This means that life and the earth has experienced significantly higher levels of CO2.
I'm not arguing that we should go on blissfully consuming energy without regard for the environment. But to me the truth is being somewhat distorted. By all means we should invest in green energy as that would reduce energy monopolies, give current species time to evolve to changes in the planet, and most importantly we should live by the principle of giving as much as we receive.
wikipedia: Carbon Cycle
Post a Comment